lyndon johnson readily be barry goldwater and richard nixon overwhelming george mcgovern. in each of those elections, one of the candidates failed to capture the spirit of the american voting public. and the winner had the advantage of the weak opponent. franklin roosevelt won his second term, landslide, because of his huge popularity. however, in many more presidential elections, the candidates are in a heated battle to present themselves as the one best capable of serving the country with the winner walking off with the modest majority. it is a customary wisdom that the campaign between the incumbent president and his opponent will be either a referendum on the first term of the president, or a judgment of which candidate will be the better leader. is there really a difference between these two considerations? does not boil down to judging the leadership skill of the incumbent based on his effectiveness during his first term, versus the unknown leadership skills of the challenger? it's easy to point to the national security, or the economic consequences, or consequent im